In section 1 «General information on the procedure of ostracism», as a result of considering source data we conclude that on the whole the procedure in question is known sufficiently well, as many ancient writers report its various aspects and details, and these reports in most cases agree with each other.
Ostracism, in its procedural respect, was a special kind of assembly meeting, which, owing to some circumstances (of both pragmatic and, probably, ritual character), was held in the Agora even after other meetings had moved to the Pnyx. There was no debate; no formal «candidates» for ostracism were nominated beforehand, so every citizen was free to write any name on his ballot. The voting at ostracism was secret de iure, but in fact nobody saw to strict observance of secrecy. There were also no generally accepted norms of inscribing ostraka.
13. In section 2 «6000 votes — quorum or minimum?» one of the most important, complicated and debatable problems connected with the procedure of ostracism is analyzed. The question is what exactly means the number 6000 that appears in some ancient descriptions of the institution. There are two versions of answer: the number is either general quorum obligatory for recognizing the ostracism valid, or minimal quantity of votes against one person necessary for his banishment. There are testimonies by Greek writers in favour of both suggestions. The Atthidographer Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F30) wrote most authoritatively about the minimum of 6000; Plutarch (Aristid. 7) thought the number to be the quorum. Therefore, disagreement and even contradiction is present within the narrative tradition. Correspondingly, opinions in modern scholarly literature are also diverse; some ancient historians accept Plutarch's "quorum theory", and others — Philochorus' «minimum theory».
Our investigation of the problem allows to maintain (with much more degree of probability if not categorically) that 6000 votes were no general quorum but the necessary minimum for one person. The latter, not the quorum, was taken into account in early epoch, when ostracism still was a prerogative of the Council and not the assembly: at that stage a person was exiled if there were 200 votes against him. And there is no reason to suppose that in the period of «classical» ostracism the situation was different. Arguments listed by those scholars who admit Plutarch's rightness appear under close consideration to be rather postulates than facts surely proved.
It is necessary to emphasize that, as far as we can judge, in Ancient Greek democracies and generally in terms of polis mentality, more important category was not quorum (that is some abstract aggregate of citizens, irrespective of opinion each of them had), but the degree of unanimity (homonoia) when taking a decision. At the centre of attention was not how many people were voting, but how many of them made the decision by their votes.
14. In section 3 «On residences of the Athenian ostracized» the author makes the following observations. The original text of Clisthenes' law on ostracism contained no formulations that prescribed any residence to the exiled persons or put any special territorial limitations on them. It was supposed that a victim of ostracism should simply leave the boards of the Athenian polis, that is the territory of Attica.
But in 480 B.C. an amendment was introduced into the text of the law (Arist. Ath. pol. 22. 8; Philochor. FGrHist 328 F30). Its purpose, as we tried to ascertain, was to prohibit the exiled persons from that moment on to cross towards Athens the line marked by such points as Heraestus (the southern extremity of Euboea) and Scyllaeum (the eastern extremity of Argolis and the whole Peloponnesus). Among the reasons for introducing the amendment we should enumerate (in order of importance): striving to avoid residence of the exiles too close to Attica, as it could provoke danger on their part; desire to outline some kind of maritime frontiers of the Athenian polis in the Saronic Gulf; prohibiting politicians ostracized to live in Aegina, an island hostile to Athens.
15. In section 4 «On the duration of the exile» we note that, according to the Clisthenes' law (and, to all appearances, also before Clisthenes) the period of ostracism was ten years. However, the Athenian assembly had full and unlimited power to annul its decision and to pass a decree on preterm return home of one or more citizens ostracized. Several times the demos used that power. In 480 B.C., in view of the danger that arose in connection with Xerxes' invasion, all the victims of the first ostracisms (Aristides, Xanthippus and others) were recalled. In 457 B.C., Cimon was allowed to return before the appointed time, in order to reduce tension in relations between Athens and Sparta.
There is a possibility (however, not very great) that on some stage of the democratic Athens' history (but not later than in 450es B.C.) an amendment was introduced into the law on ostracism that reduced the duration of exile from ten to five years. In any case, some sources (Philochor. FGrHist 328 F30; Diod. XI. 55. 2) report such a reduction. In the present condition of source material, the problem cannot be solved categorically.
16. There have been discoveries of ostraka groups, which, to judge from some peculiarities, had been prepared obviously beforehand, not on the day of the ostracism. In section 5 «To the question of ostraka prepared beforehand» the author considers reasons for appearance of such artifacts. It is noted that, in spite of the common opinion, not all known cases of ostraka prepared beforehand can be regarded results of hetaireiaVs activities and attempts of political manipulations. In a number of cases with much more probability we can say that such ostraka were prepared by scribes, who sold them during ostracisms. We are almost sure that such was the case of 190 ostraka with Themistocles' name discovered in 1939 in a well at the north slope of the Acropolis. The ballots had been inscribed by only 14 diverse hands.
It is necessary to emphasize that citizens of democratic Athens resorted to the help of scribes not because they were in bulk illiterate. It is by no means true, although such judgments are not rare in scholarly literature. Simply inscribing an ostrakon was connected with certain technical difficulties, and sometimes the easiest way out of the situation was purchase of a ballot prepared and inscribed.
17. In Chapter IV «Ostracism in Athenian political struggle» one of the chief aspects of the whole investigation is subject of analysis. Very important are the following questions: what place did ostracism take in the context of political struggle in Classical Athens? What were its functions, and did those functions remain immutable, or did they undergo some evolution? Is it possible to outline certain stages in the history of ostracism in connection with some changes in Athenian political conflicts? However, before passing to direct consideration of these specific problems, it proves to be necessary, for better understanding of history and functioning of the institution in the system of Athenian democracy, to touch preliminary upon topic of more general character, namely main peculiarities of political (and public on the whole) life of Athens, of internal political situation in the Athenian polis during the century when ostracism existed in its "classical" form, that is the fifth century B.C. Dealing with such themes, even if limited scope, is dictated by the logic of research; it is, as far as we can judge, not only justified, but simply inevitable, so far as we are studying a historical phenomenon not in some "vacuum", nut in its proper context.
Accordingly, the chapter is opened by section 1 «On some peculiarities of political life in fifth-century B.C. Athens», in which, as can be seen from the title, we by no means attempted to enumerate and consider all main features of political life and political struggle in the Athenian polis of the period mentioned: such a task would have require a separate monographic study. We were interested primarily in those features, which are relevant for the main theme of the book — functioning of ostracism. It seems necessary to emphasize the following particular aspects.
The internal political situation in the Athenian polis of the Classical epoch was notable for its complicacy and fraction. It by no means resembled the «two-party system» characteristic of many modern democracies. There were a large number of small political groups, which could unite and make coalitions to reach certain aims. The groups in question were not mass organizations; they emerged and existed in the milieu of the political elite. Their character was not abstract and ideological but personal; in each group the role of the leader (individual or collective, as one or another noble family) was extremely great. Questions of external politics were very important in the struggle of the factions, and these questions were comprehended also not abstractly but on quite personal level.
What has been said is relevant for the Classical epoch as a whole. As to such particular period as the fifth century B.C., which attracts our attention in the greatest degree, it takes a special place in the Athenian history. The century in question was a transitional period between the pre-Clisthenic epoch, with its aristocratic rule in the public life and flourishing of regionalism, and the epoch after the Peloponnesian war, when democracy had already developed into its final form, and the nobility as a social stratum had left the political stage. During most part of the fifth century, we can observe some kind of "diarchy" or equilibrium between two leading forces, the demos and the aristocracy. There was certain distribution of powers between them: members of the aristocracy had virtual monopoly to highest posts, and the demos through the assembly and the courts exercised the supreme control over their activities on those posts. The demos' attitude to the nobles was ambiguous: it used their political traditions, their experience and connections in order to govern the state more efficiently, but at the same time it demonstrated constantly its alienation from them and inflicted repeatedly various repressions upon them. The equilibrium was unstable and it raised continuously sharp political conflicts. For all this, during the whole period in question standing of aristocracy always deteriorated, and by the end of the fifth century its importance was reduced to zero.